Nicol_Wk3_Improvement Nicol Epple ENG 764 Writing Response-Wk3, Tues. Fanny Is a Good Girl! And that’s good. Below are some forming thoughts, my writing becomes disjointed when I give examples-please ignore overuse of “I posit” and “I argue”s, certainly not meant to be an enforcement of any staunchness. I invite further discussion. Our discussion today of Fanny again led me to think about the issues of conscience and consciousness. Maria poignantly stated the question of where does Fanny’s moral compass lie? According to Edwards every character has a conscience, or inner guide. I posit the conscience is the placement of the moral compass. The barometer or standard of that morality is unique to the individual. And our tangent conversation about whether one inherits or learns bigotry, interestingly, directly relates to moral barometer. Many behaviors, attitudes, and perspectives are learned. Yet, equally relevant is the contributing factor of inherency (speaking more broadly now not to the particular issue of bigotry). Are we discussing the age-old query of “nature or nurture”? It seems so. Though “conscience and consciousness” does not parallel “nature and nurture,” they share similar relating terms. To either comparison, I would say that one acts by the prompting of both. As for Fanny, there is evidence that like most of the other characters she exhibits consciousness. In other words she acts in accordance to how she perceives that she should act. This is the learned (behavior) whether learned from others of from herself through her own experiences. However, I posit that Fanny has a conscience that instructs the expression of her consciousness. I argue that Fanny is implicitly good, meaning more selfless than selfish, thoughtful, considerate, humble, kind, and the trait that commands all of her behavior, shy. There is so much evidence from the text of which I will provide some forthcoming. Because I see Fanny to have these characteristics I consider any behavior, even though may be prompted by a consciousness, aligning with her conscience. Therefore, even if she acts to manipulate (Maria-why do we use “manipulate” with Fanny and “create” with Corinne? The former has such pejorative connotations while the latter deserving of accolades, yet are the two not very similar? Not the same but in certain frameworks can be virtually the same?) so even if Fanny acts manipulatively I argue that she does so considering the best of intentions and outcomes for all. First the question of trustworthiness of the narrator. Can the reader believe that what the narrator states if truth? For the narrator states many of Fanny’s characteristics as facts, such as Fanny having the “most gentle nature” (346). This is in discordance with a sly, manipulating disposition. Another explanation of her behaviors-Fanny is moved by a sense of duty. Does it emanate from her lower position among the Bertrum family? Enforced by Mrs. Norris’s grave haranguing? Perhaps and probably. But that does not take away the fact that Fanny consciously comports herself from a sense of duty, a characteristic that is not mentioned with the other young women of the story. Even in speaking of her love for Edmund, arguably the strongest feeling Fanny has ever cajoled, Fanny executes her conduct with duty in mind, “It was her intention, as she felt it to be her duty, to try to overcome all that was excessive” (274). Her consciousness and shyness: in describing her coming out ball, the narrator tells the reader that Fanny’s greatest fears are “of doing wrong and being looked at” (276). Moreover, in the list of the contributing factors to realizing full happiness for the evening is that she could dance “without much observation” (276). Her selfishness: Fanny’s happiness fills her when the happiness of others is realized. Again, in describing her hopes for the ball she includes seeing her brother William enjoying himself as integral (276). Even the desires that Fanny has for herself are not excessive: having strength to dance and avoid fatigue, dance “a little” with Edmund, not much with Mr. Crawford, and be able to “keep away from Mrs. Norris” (276). These are just a few sparse examples . . . I am on the lookout for more to develop these thoughts more fully.
Nicol Epple
ENG 764
Writing Response-Wk3, Tues.
Fanny Is a Good Girl! And that’s good.
Below are some forming thoughts, my writing becomes disjointed when I give examples-please ignore overuse of “I posit” and “I argue”s, certainly not meant to be an enforcement of any staunchness. I invite further discussion.
Our discussion today of Fanny again led me to think about the issues of conscience and consciousness. Maria poignantly stated the question of where does Fanny’s moral compass lie? According to Edwards every character has a conscience, or inner guide. I posit the conscience is the placement of the moral compass. The barometer or standard of that morality is unique to the individual. And our tangent conversation about whether one inherits or learns bigotry, interestingly, directly relates to moral barometer. Many behaviors, attitudes, and perspectives are learned. Yet, equally relevant is the contributing factor of inherency (speaking more broadly now not to the particular issue of bigotry). Are we discussing the age-old query of “nature or nurture”? It seems so. Though “conscience and consciousness” does not parallel “nature and nurture,” they share similar relating terms. To either comparison, I would say that one acts by the prompting of both.
As for Fanny, there is evidence that like most of the other characters she exhibits consciousness. In other words she acts in accordance to how she perceives that she should act. This is the learned (behavior) whether learned from others of from herself through her own experiences. However, I posit that Fanny has a conscience that instructs the expression of her consciousness. I argue that Fanny is implicitly good, meaning more selfless than selfish, thoughtful, considerate, humble, kind, and the trait that commands all of her behavior, shy. There is so much evidence from the text of which I will provide some forthcoming. Because I see Fanny to have these characteristics I consider any behavior, even though may be prompted by a consciousness, aligning with her conscience. Therefore, even if she acts to manipulate (Maria-why do we use “manipulate” with Fanny and “create” with Corinne? The former has such pejorative connotations while the latter deserving of accolades, yet are the two not very similar? Not the same but in certain frameworks can be virtually the same?) so even if Fanny acts manipulatively I argue that she does so considering the best of intentions and outcomes for all.
First the question of trustworthiness of the narrator. Can the reader believe that what the narrator states if truth? For the narrator states many of Fanny’s characteristics as facts, such as Fanny having the “most gentle nature” (346). This is in discordance with a sly, manipulating disposition.
Another explanation of her behaviors-Fanny is moved by a sense of duty. Does it emanate from her lower position among the Bertrum family? Enforced by Mrs. Norris’s grave haranguing? Perhaps and probably. But that does not take away the fact that Fanny consciously comports herself from a sense of duty, a characteristic that is not mentioned with the other young women of the story. Even in speaking of her love for Edmund, arguably the strongest feeling Fanny has ever cajoled, Fanny executes her conduct with duty in mind, “It was her intention, as she felt it to be her duty, to try to overcome all that was excessive” (274).
Her consciousness and shyness: in describing her coming out ball, the narrator tells the reader that Fanny’s greatest fears are “of doing wrong and being looked at” (276). Moreover, in the list of the contributing factors to realizing full happiness for the evening is that she could dance “without much observation” (276).
Her selfishness: Fanny’s happiness fills her when the happiness of others is realized. Again, in describing her hopes for the ball she includes seeing her brother William enjoying himself as integral (276). Even the desires that Fanny has for herself are not excessive: having strength to dance and avoid fatigue, dance “a little” with Edmund, not much with Mr. Crawford, and be able to “keep away from Mrs. Norris” (276).
These are just a few sparse examples . . . I am on the lookout for more to develop these thoughts more fully.